Better question, now: if you understand that, say First Contact operates within the universe created by Generations, and you accept the universe of First Contact as canon, does that not make you implicitly accept Generations as canon also? I mean, there's a *cough* reason why the Enterprise-E exists, isn't there?

Click to expand...

*shrugs* Enterprise D was old and probably decommissioned at some point between the end of TNG Season 6 and First Contact.

Ah, but then to argue at all about canon is to presume that a fan has the right to decide for themselves. I agree with the Paramount canon because I actually like the tension which inconsistencies create in a work of art. Just as when with Christian-Scripture-study (I used to be intensely Catholic) I enjoyed the creativity of the mental gymnastics I had to make to cause it all to hang together non-contradictorily, so also do I find it fun to try to make the, say, "Admiral Archer" comment or Spock Prime recognizing Chris Pine as if he truly were a young William Shatner (which he isn't) all fit with what I already know about Star Trek.

One could argue that, like all myths, the stories change but there's a kernel which stays the same. In this case, it happens to be the crew, not the actors; the general story, not the specifics.

As far as a "recognizable Trek universe," to me that's a stylistic question more than anything else. I like variability as much as general consistency. For example, throughout the films and shows, the transporter has been a main feature. But look at the differences between the TOS transporter effect and the new movie: I find that interesting.

Where a stickler for "continuity" would be upset at the change, I see the (ostensibly, change-in-art-director) as a reason for investing more meaning into the show for myself, like, "How, within the Trek universe as it presents itself, could transporter technology exist in such-and-such a way NOW when it existed there in that way?" Not that those are necessarily questions worth asking, but I find asking them pleasant and fun.

Same with the ship designs.

Click to expand...

Oh, sure - I enjoy such discussions myself, and I also enjoy coming up with in-universe explanations for any inconsistences I find. I personally, however, just can't reject a chunk of Trek simply because of those inconsistences. On the other hand, if the Federation ceased to be the Federation that I know, love and am occassionally irritated by - you know, basically the Good Guys in White Hats who mean well, but who are also more than a bit bland and oftentimes smug - well, I don't think I could accept that. There are things that make Trek unique, and one of them is that humanity and many of its neighbors in the Alpha and Beta quadrants manage to live in peace with one another, work together for the common good, and fight against common enemies. If the franchise goes all nililistic and grimdark, I would lose interest and retreat into my Trek past. But it hasn't done that yet, so yay!

Because they're lazy and can't be bothered to check whether they are violating canon = not a good reason.

and there's insanity (writing an episode to justify why the Enterprise-D fired phasers out of its photon torpedo tube in a previous episode, or the Klingon forehead deal)... and sometimes I've felt the writers went overly far in that regard.

Click to expand...

The Klingon Forehead Explanation episode was surprisingly good. I didn't need an explanation but who cares where an idea for a good episode comes from, anyway?

I don't see cannon so much as precise details in timeline, as I do in the fact that Star Trek was not just some general science fiction show. What I see as "cannon" is the formula - action and adventure revolving around a premise, a moral theme; I think what has always made startrek stand apart is that it picks a tough issue to discuss. (Star Trek 6, the Cold War, etc.)

Click to expand...

oh it's really not that complicated. just think of a cannon as being a really big gun!

For me, the problem with canon is that way too many people take it way too seriously. Canon is about the last thing I am concerned about when I try to enjoy a new episode or movie. Granted, it serves the function of letting all incarnations of Star Trek feel like they take place in the same fictional universe. But at the end of the day I care about more substantial things. What I can't stand is when people equate canon to continuity. What I outright hate is when people act like canon is somehow related to factual history. Also, for me, canon has nothing whatsoever to do with the look of characters or ships.

*old Spock voice* Ahh; Canon, canon, canon. Bill Shatner is currently writing a Starfleet Academy series that bears little to no resemblence to any ST canon (Kirk and Spock entering the academy together after working as S.I. operatives.) Take a deep breath and think of it as another alternate reality. LOL.

The ideas that Star Trek fans apply to canon can be found in other aspects of life. Take Christianity for example. The Bible is filled with contradictory accounts of the same events and vastly different portrayals of the same god. The reason is, like TV, the texts were written by humans that make mistakes. So, humans use their intellects and imaginations to make square pegs fit into round holes and rationalize the contradictions away.

In religion we call this theology and apologetics. In Star Trek we call it canon. Both serve the same purpose in the human mind, to create order is a disordered world. You can't dismiss fans who hold canon close to their hearts simply because they do it with something like TV that everyone presumes to be frivilous. It is something that humans seem predisposed to do when presented with a complex idea system.

i think canon is important, it helps maintain a level of consistency. at the same time though, it can limit what stories can be explored. people do take it too seriously though because at the end of the day, as long as you enjoy watching the show it doesnt really matter if it sticks to the canon law perfectly (though you should not ignore canon all together).

mirror universes and time paradox'es are a useful way round canon anyway

No, it doesn't. Canon has nothing to do with consistency. "Where No Man Has Gone Before" is canonical, but is not consistent with the rest of the series about Kirk's middle initial. The word you're looking for is 'continuity.'

And then you take the novels and comic books into account, and there’s even more canon to take into account. Unless, of course, none of that actually took place. Is anybody else as confused as I am? Good.

Click to expand...

I would like to think that canon matters, even if it isn’t held in high regard by anybody but those of us that go that extra mile to learn more about the series that we love. Extended works enrich the universes of our heroes, and add depth by adding new characters and worlds to explore, while further developing the characters we are already invested in. And keeping to some sort of continuity helps keep the stories straight without constantly contradicting everything we’ve already seen and read, making for a more pleasurable time spent enjoying those adventures.

Click to expand...

There's some stuff about Star Trek but not very interesting as it's been discussed on TrekBBS before.